Pseudoscience

[TheHeretic]

I have no issue with some of these subjects in the science forum, especiallyif they are genuine questions, etc. when people are justifying certain things whilst ignoring evidence, or producing none of their own, then they should be 'outed as woo merchants' and frankly ignored.

[Eric Mc]

What is annoying me is that they seem to be far too common. There are almost as many pseudo science based threads as real science.

I'd prefer the pseudo science and other similar odd ball stuff to be discussed elsewhere and keep the science for science.

[TheHeretic]

Not that many, really. Scroll through all the science! Threads, and there are only 4 or 5 pseudo topics out of 3 pages. Water divining, UFO's, pyramids, psychic dogs, etc.

[Eric Mc]

That's too many in my view. And quite a lot of the real science topics are actually old topics that were transferred in here by the mods when the forum was first launched.

I find it all very depressing really and a sad reflection on the state of peoples' education.

Maybe we should have a whole "Pseudoscience" forum?

[ewenm]

Interesting from a psychological viewpoint though. What is it about the evolution of the human brain that makes us so evidently predisposed to "faith" (i.e. belief in something without or even despite evidence)?

Maybe having the whole tribe believe in the same thing makes the tribe stronger as a whole, so each member of the tribe is more likely to reproduce. So those with a greater predisposition to faith may have done better than those without.

Just guess work of course, but the prevalence of faith-based beliefs around the world suggests there's something more to it than "poor education". Even highly-educated people can have faith in something.

[crofty1984]

TheHeretic said:

I have no issue with some of these subjects in the science forum, especiallyif they are genuine questions, etc. when people are justifying certain things whilst ignoring evidence, or producing none of their own, then they should be 'outed as woo merchants' and frankly ignored.

Woo-merchant.

[Halb]

ewenm said:

Just guess work of course, but the prevalence of faith-based beliefs around the world suggests there's something more to it than "poor education". Even highly-educated people can have faith in something.

Quite, and it doesn't have to be a god. It can be their own research, their political movement, their opinions or themselves. Faith is a powerful motivator.

edit.
Just taken a look at Ben Goldacre. Seems he is amused by anti-MMGW bores?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/1...

Edited by Halb on Tuesday 31st January 11:13

[Simpo Two]

'Faith is belief without reason'.



I like that. It doesn't make sense but sometimes it is necessary.

[tankslappa]

ewenm said:

Interesting from a psychological viewpoint though. What is it about the evolution of the human brain that makes us so evidently predisposed to "faith" (i.e. belief in something without or even despite evidence)?

Maybe having the whole tribe believe in the same thing makes the tribe stronger as a whole, so each member of the tribe is more likely to reproduce. So those with a greater predisposition to faith may have done better than those without.

Just guess work of course, but the prevalence of faith-based beliefs around the world suggests there's something more to it than "poor education". Even highly-educated people can have faith in something.

I find it fascinating from a psychological position too.

Last week I read 'Why we believe in God(s)' by Andy Thomson who is an evolutionary psychologist (there is a lecture that he did a couple of years ago about the same subject on YouTube), which was a very interesting read. We've all had the arguments about applying rationality and critical thinking about such issues, but to dissect the human condition to need to find certainty and patterns at an evolutionary level is quite an overwhelming argument IMO.

As all humans are susceptible to woo at some level, irrespective of how well you think skeptically, I think reading about such stuff helps keep your mind sharp and more resistant to nonsense.

[Seeker UK]

crofty1984 said:

Woo-merchant.

A little bit woo, a little bit weyyyyy.....

[uktrailmonster]

tankslappa said:

ewenm said:

Interesting from a psychological viewpoint though. What is it about the evolution of the human brain that makes us so evidently predisposed to "faith" (i.e. belief in something without or even despite evidence)?

Maybe having the whole tribe believe in the same thing makes the tribe stronger as a whole, so each member of the tribe is more likely to reproduce. So those with a greater predisposition to faith may have done better than those without.

Just guess work of course, but the prevalence of faith-based beliefs around the world suggests there's something more to it than "poor education". Even highly-educated people can have faith in something.

I find it fascinating from a psychological position too.

Last week I read 'Why we believe in God(s)' by Andy Thomson who is an evolutionary psychologist (there is a lecture that he did a couple of years ago about the same subject on YouTube), which was a very interesting read. We've all had the arguments about applying rationality and critical thinking about such issues, but to dissect the human condition to need to find certainty and patterns at an evolutionary level is quite an overwhelming argument IMO.

As all humans are susceptible to woo at some level, irrespective of how well you think skeptically, I think reading about such stuff helps keep your mind sharp and more resistant to nonsense.

Yes, this is an interesting point. Sometimes I wish I believed in God, just for the sheer positive power it can sometimes provide. If you look at many top US athletes for example, they often cite faith as a major incentive to their success. Plus it also gives you some comfort in dying. So I can see how compelling it is to believe in God as a concept. But unfortunately my modern scientific education and logical thinking tells me that religion is a complete load of tosh on a literal level and is nothing more than a collective belief in a completely abstract concept. But there is also a dark side to faith, look no further than the Middle East today....

[jimmy156]

TheHeretic said:

psychic dogs, etc.

to be fair i started that thread to poke fun at the kind of stuff that was being reported on the BBC.

Can you blame the masses for believing "woo" when its reported as news on the BBC!

[Halb]

jimmy156 said:

to be fair i started that thread to poke fun at the kind of stuff that was being reported on the BBC.

Can you blame the masses for believing "woo" when its reported as news on the BBC!

I remember watching a documentary about how dogs have been conditioned to respond to humans by their close relationship over thousands of years. It might appear a little bit 'psychic'. Not that I am one to say psychic is rubbish or not.

The other animals are more intelligent and astute than it seems most humans can appreciate. Understanding their habitat very well.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/01...

[Hilts]

Eric Mc said:

What is annoying me is that they seem to be far too common. There are almost as many pseudo science based threads as real science.

In what field of accountancy is 6 almost as many as 53 ?

[TheHeretic]

Hilts said:

In what field of accountancy is 6 almost as many as 53 ?

I pointed out that there really aren't that many, but even those 6 are too much for poor Eric!

[Shaolin]

ewenm said:

Interesting from a psychological viewpoint though. What is it about the evolution of the human brain that makes us so evidently predisposed to "faith" (i.e. belief in something without or even despite evidence)?

There's an article in this months National Geographic about twin studies that says there it a large hereditability factor to having religious faith, though which particular faith is irrelevant.

I have never felt even the slightest inkling of religious faith. I went through school when god and hymns and praying were pushed quite heavily, it's not that I've turned my back, or lost faith, it was just never there in the first place, I have never understood anything that a religious person has described as being to do with faith.

[Halb]

Hilts said:

Eric Mc said:

What is annoying me is that they seem to be far too common. There are almost as many pseudo science based threads as real science.

In what field of accountancy is 6 almost as many as 53 ?

Does MMGW get included in the 'science' or 'pseudo-science' category here?

[DamienB]

tankslappa said:

Recently read 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre which I admit I enjoyed (even if you aren't to mention his forum around these parts).

Should be required reading in schools. I can't think of a single other book with more educational value packed into it than that one. Why aren't we to mention the forum? Have I missed a mumsnet style scrap?

[tankslappa]

DamienB said:

Should be required reading in schools. I can't think of a single other book with more educational value packed into it than that one. Why aren't we to mention the forum? Have I missed a mumsnet style scrap?

I believe there are a few ex PH members there that once used to post counter opinions (some may call it trolling) in the PH climate change threads.

[Hilts]

TheHeretic said:

Hilts said:

In what field of accountancy is 6 almost as many as 53 ?

I pointed out that there really aren't that many, but even those 6 are too much for poor Eric!

I think one would be too many for MC Eric, was this forum his 'baby' ?